The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.
Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.
Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.
Tyco Fire Products LP has agreed to a $17.5 million settlement to resolve claims by plaintiffs alleging PFAS from Tyco’s operations contaminated their drinking wells. The court in the South Carolina AFFF MDL has issued a preliminary approval of the parties’ agreement.
January 25, 2021 | In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873 (D.S.C.)
DuPont, Corteva, and Chemours have agreed to pay $83 million to settle an Ohio multi-district litigation over PFAS contamination. Even more, the companies have, between them, committed to apportion $4 billion related to PFAS liabilities.
January 22, 2021 | E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, No. 2:13-md-02533
Defendants in a PFAS contamination class action suit by Hoosick, New York residents have opposed the residents’ motion for class certification, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims are too individualized to warrant certification. Specifically, Defendants argue the contamination at the plaintiffs’ various properties is distinct and was caused by various sources.
January 14, 2021 | Michelle Baker et al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. et al, No. 1:16-cv-00917 (N.D.N.Y.)
In a one-page order, the Superior Court of New Jersey’s appellate division has rejected 3M and others’ attempt to stay implementation of New Jersey’s new PFAS drinking water restrictions. The court impliedly rejected 3M’s argument that the regulation would cause unreasonable costs and irreparable harm to New Jersey businesses and their customers, allowing implementation to move ahead as scheduled.
January 4, 2021 | In re: Appeal of the New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection’s June 1, 2020 Adopted Amendment, No. A-00307-20 and A-000308-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)
Despite allegations that the judge’s bias affected the trial’s outcome, the district court rejected DuPont’s motion for mistrial. DuPont’s motion followed the jury’s issuance of a $50 million verdict to the cancer survivor plaintiff, who alleged damages from PFAS contamination.
December 31, 2020 | Abbott v. E.I. du Pont e Nemours & Co., No. 2:17-cv-998 (S.D. Ohio)